z-logo
Premium
Evaluation of interleukin‐2 administered by continuous infusion in patients with metastatic melanoma
Author(s) -
Legha Sewa S.,
Gianan Mary Ann,
Plager Carl,
Eton Omar E.,
Papadopoulous Nicholas E. J.
Publication year - 1996
Publication title -
cancer
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.052
H-Index - 304
eISSN - 1097-0142
pISSN - 0008-543X
DOI - 10.1002/(sici)1097-0142(19960101)77:1<89::aid-cncr15>3.0.co;2-4
Subject(s) - medicine , metastatic melanoma , melanoma , continuous infusion , oncology , cancer research
BACKGROUND Interleukin‐2 (IL‐2) has been used widely in the treatment of advanced melanoma, most often using a high dose bolus schedule of administration. We have evaluated the antitumor activity and toxicity of IL‐2 when administered by a continuous infusion schedule in patients with metastatic melanoma. METHODS Thirty‐three patients with metastatic melanoma were treated with IL‐2 using the maximum tolerated dose level of 12 × 10 6 IU/m 2 as a continuous infusion over 24 hours × 4d/week for 4 weeks every 6 weeks. All patients but one had previously received and failed chemotherapy and had evidence of progressive disease. They were required to have normal organ functions and a performance status of 0 to 1. RESULTS We observed 1 complete response and 6 partial responses among 31 evaluable patients for a response rate of 22% (95%, confidence interval: 10% to 41%). The median response duration was 6 months, with a range of 4 to 18 months. The toxicity of IL‐2 was severe but manageable on the general inpatient ward. One patient died of hepatic necrosis that was probably related to IL‐2. Five patients required dose reduction of IL‐2 due to toxicity in the form of hepatic or renal insufficiency, which was rapidly reversible. CONCLUSIONS IL‐2, used as a continuous infusion at a dose level of 12 × 10 6 IU/m 2 /day, 4 times every week for 4 weeks, has activity against metastatic melanoma similar to that reported with high dose IL‐2 given in a bolus schedule. Cancer 1996;77:89‐96.

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here